Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it

I've ONLY been referring to the angular unconformity in Mosaic Canyon for the last few days, the one on the far right of your post, had no idea you were referring to anything else. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You said, "All this is off topic." Does "all this" refer only to what you said in your post? If so, then by "'dunes' challenge" do you mean Tanypertyx's angular unconformity of dunes?Of does "all this" include all the points that Tanypteryx raised?Concerned that others might not be sure how to interpret the ambiguity, it was necessary to clarify that "all this" does not include other examples of angular unconformities beyond the Great Unconformity.There *is* a moderator paying careful attention to this thread. Please let him do his job.

There is no angular unconformity there. ABE: YES. /ABEHe accused me of leaving out the Navajo Sandstone in my basic scenario about the Grand Canyon. I showed that he was wrong and he refused to acknowledge it. That was the point I thought he was making but then he brought up the dunes accusation as well. BOTH are off topic; NEITHER has to do with angular unconformities. And then when he said it's on topic because it's an "unconformity" he just stuck that on and in any case this thread is not about other kinds of unconformities, it's specifically about the Great Unconformity and angular unconbformities that are similar to it. No it does not, and again Tanypteryx is not talking about an ANGULAR unconformity. I thought I was being completely cooperative.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sorry, I should have been clearer.I meant to say that your "Comprehensive Global Theory" (Message 559) does not account for a layer of wind-blown sand dunes embedded in the middle of your flood deposited sedimentary layers. The Navajo Sandstone is 2200 feet thick in places. That is a lot to try and sweep under the carpet.You wrongly described the Navajo as looking water-soaked, but in reality it looks like and is, wind-blown sand dunes. Your comprehensive flood theory will never be able to plausibly explain how it occurs in the middle of the stack.

I strongly disagree. The Navajo Sandstone simply does not look like wind-blown sand dunes to anyone who has seen wind-blown sand dunes. It looks water-soaked and I don't have a problem seeing it as a product of the Flood even if you do.And this IS off topic.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Since you didn't know which images I was referring to, let me make the point again.I'm talking about the pattern of discussion that has emerged when specific images of unconformities have been presented like these: What happens is that you raise questions about details of the images having nothing to do with angular unconformities. To be very clear what I mean, here are a couple annotated images showing how discussion has been diverted onto such details: What I was trying to say was that if your focus on these minute details is important to supporting your position about the formation of angular unconformities then that is fine and you should get on with it. But if they're not really relevant to that, and you indicated in your Message 550 that they're not ("I'm not sure I'm implying anything...etc..."), then you should try to bring your focus onto those parts of the images that support your view.

So, then the GU and other unconformities are not always angular unconformities. But you do say this: So, you admit that some places the unconformity is erosional. And then we have shown that erosion can produce 'straight and level' surfaces in many locations.It would seem to me that you are simply making specious arguments here, largely based on your own personal incredulity. I'm curious as to how you can claim 'it all eroded down to bedrock' and yet say that there was no erosion. As far as I know, that is erosion, and you have admitted that there is some erosion of bedrock in some places.I guess I'm not following your logic. Please explain your definition of 'bedrock'. And why do we see sedimentary strata below the GU? AFAIK, that would be erosion. Where do you think that sediment came from if not erosion? You are confused. We are talking about the origin of uncoformities not the age of the earth. Again, please tell us what you mean by bedrock. Cannot limestone be the bedrock below my house?And, in fact, we do have strata beneath the GU. Where did it come from? Again, this would be erosion. I'm not sure why not. The GC Supergroup is composed of sedimentary strata. They have been faulted and deformed and eroded before the GU erosion. But there were strata laid down prior to the land being 'scoured'. Where did those strata come from and why is the 'scouring' not erosion?

NO.You misread something. I tried to correct it in the previous post. This is NOT what I was saying.I will have to come back to the rest of your post.Edited by Faith, : eliminate wrong punctuation

Why do you claim there are no angular unconformities in the Navajo Sandstone when in fact one of the major facets that identify the Navajo Sandstone as aeolian are the repeated cycles of angular unconformities created by the differential of summer and winter winds?image from site linked above:

I thank you for your helpfulness, but decisions about what is on topic are the moderator's responsibility. This is the image Tanyperyx presented of the Navajo Sandstone. It looks like a surface angular unconformity: Here's an image of the Navajo Sandstone in Arizona where the angular unconformities, both buried and surface, are more obvious: So when you said, "All this is off topic," I was only trying to make it clear to thread participants that discussion of all angular unconformities is definitely on topic.

She said that there is erosion at some angular unconformities such as the Mosaic Canyon occurrence because the strata are broken off .Then she has unintentionally said that the GC is formed by 'scouring', which I interpret as being erosion.The logical conclusion is that since strata are/can be broken off and 'scouring' occur, then erosion must be a factor in forming the Great Unconformity. Sure. If I am correct in Faith saying that:1.) there is erosion (even though she denies/redefines it as 'scouring', and2.) there was also an " ... earlier deposition of strata followed by a force to tilt them, ...";then there are two events prior to the deposition of the sediments above the unconformity. Those would be 'earlier deposition of strata' and a 'force' that deformed them.But I admit that Faith's posts are more than a little murky.Apparently now she is saying that there were no strata deposited prior to the unconformity which contradicts the point #2 above.

Since when are those levels in crossbedded sandstone called "angular unconformities?" Since when do they represent a supposed "time gap?" The very same levels and forms appear in dry sand dunes where they are obviously not unconformities, which can only occur in rock layers.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Keeping in mind, of course, that unconformity surfaces are not complete unconformities until they are buried. By definition, they represent 'a missing page of the rock record'. A very good point. As I might have mentioned earlier, any bedding plane could be called a miniature unconformity because there is a short break in deposition. In this case, wind has blown off the top of the dune cross-bedding. And again, that would be 'erosion'...This is a bit of an esoteric point for this discussion, but it is interesting.Here is a simplified explanation: Now, just imagine the wind changing direction and you will get the patterns that your image shows.

I am shocked. What do you mean 'simply'?Why do they look different?All you have done is make an assertion. But why does it look 'water soaked'?If you look at water lain dunes, they are smaller in area, do not have ventifacts, and are more poorly sorted (among other observations). The origin of sand dunes might be off topic. However the presence of erosion within them and the evidence for it is not off topic, since that is how unconformities form.

Re: your five pictures.The only pictures where I had a point to make about the form of the unconformity itself are those of Siccar Point (2 and 5)where the timing of the erosion was at issue. Mosaic Canyon (3) is the only one where its appearance keeps throwing me and making it hard to form a judgment of it. The other two of the little clasts (1 and 4) were about the problem of scale but not directly focused on the topic of angular unconformities. I've been focused on Mosaic Canyon since I brought it up.